I am yet to see any real argument from those suggesting a meek approach in order to bide our time, about the actual consequences of ending the negotiations immediately.

I mean, there have been posts here mentioning embargoes and so on, but there has been no analysis at all as to whether Greece really is in the position to unilateraly declare an economic embargo against Macedonia.

If anyone wanted to take this discussion seriously, which has never been done before on any forum, then it would be about evaluating those assumed consequences.

Otherwise, all I am seeing is a pointless heated argument over absolutely nothing but assumptions and opinions.

This is precisely the reason why we never actually get into a serious and analytical discussion, nor has it ever been possible on any forum, where we can really stay on track and moderate the thread to stay the course and purpose, and put a final end to the arguments of the fear-mongerers who assume the end of the Republic of Macedonia, if it withdraws from one agreement, signed 15 years ago, that impacts on nobody in the world, and has no relevance to anyone in the world, other than to the Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonians.

We have gone into a discussion that borders on arguing over who is a bigger and better patriot, when everyone in the forum is against a name change and against the interim accord, and instead everyone wants to work out the best possible way for Macedonia to fix this situation it is currently in.

Some of us, myself included, argue for an immediate end to the Interim Accord, on the basis of principles and sovereignty.

However, it seems for many other Macedonians, and perhaps even more importantly for the Macedonian Government, that argument is not enough; there is a fear of the assumed 'consequences' of that action, which has mostly been manufactured by propaganda.

So we need to move beyond that argument alone, not because it is not the correct one, but because that argument is too correct, too real, too fast.
Yes we need a mental shift in Macedonia, we need the Macedonian people and Government to shake this submissive slave-mentality, but we also need, I think perhaps more pressingly (though I recognise how inter-related they are), an immediate end to the negotiations over the Macedonian name.

It seems what is required is that we prove the feared assumed consequences are not nearly as dire as people seem to believe and we need to show that the existing situation, is causing more harm than good both in the economic sense and in terms of the harm being caused to the Macedonian national identity.

Then, moving forward we can more easily bring everyone around into accepting the most correct argument, that they should assert the Sovereignty of the Macedonian nation and the Will and Freedom of the Macedonian people, and through that, provoke or ignite the process for the required mental shift.

Silver,
I'm one person and I don't intend in having separate replays to few persons at once, sorry for the one day you lost waiting for my replay even though you should respect the primary discussion me and Vangelovski have.

@ Rogi

I'm still waiting the answer from Vangelovski about the status of Macedonia in UN if we withdraw from the IA.

Maybe you could answer instead of him or to give your opinion what will follow after such act(unilateral withdrawing) since we are accepted as member in the UN [U]on the basis of the IA[/U]?

That is the first trap on our sovereignty and making it more vulnerable will come after we lose the membership in UN and we will have to prepare new application for re-admission to the United Nations under the Constitutional name.

Do you know what that means?

Letting us out of UN and gambling to see if the new resolution will be accepted by the Security Council P-5 members with right to veto our application.

USA, China and Russia have recognized us under our name for all purposes, UK only billateraly but we always have FRANCE as permament obstacle and traditional ally of Greece.

It will be another situation like when China vetoed the draft resolutions to renew the UN peacekeeper mission in Macedonia which later led to the Kosovo crisis and 350.000 refugees from which huge number stayed in Macedonia and later got recruitet in the 2001 for UCK.

[url]http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/190/33325.html[/url]

Keeping us out of UN is something Greece have a wet dream about and it will provide excelent ground to the Albanian extremists and we gonna find in position of becoming another Protectorate in the rang of Kosovo or Bosnia with posibile ferederalization and in such circumstances obvious change of the name put in front of another Ramkoven experience.

That's why if we already decide to go this path we should prepare for it, but except for attaching the etiquette of "being traitor" the persons like Indigen which presents themselfs as genuine hardcore patriots have NOTHING to offer.

No army, no strategy, no climate for mobilization of the people, many political profeteurs, no reserve coridors, no sea ports, all main resources in foreign hands, poor economy and weak diplomatic power.

Further worsening of our position by giving up the UN seat will put us in serious problems first of all it will give another opportunity to Greece's friends to force us to change our name in order to enter the UN, than we have to cross the same path to NATO, EU etc.

I don't know what else could add, for me is simple, we go the harder way but resistant or putting ourself in front of formal execution.

[QUOTE=Rogi;61689]
I mean, there have been posts here mentioning embargoes and so on, but there has been no [B][SIZE="4"]analysis[/SIZE][/B] at all as to whether Greece really is in the position to unilateraly declare an economic embargo against Macedonia.

If anyone wanted to take this discussion seriously, which has never been done before on any forum, then it would be about [B]evaluating those assumed consequences[/B].
[/QUOTE]

Rogi we should make a fault tree analysis of the possible outcomes of a withdrawal from the accord.

[QUOTE=Bratot;61694]I'm still waiting the answer from Vangelovski about the status of Macedonia in UN if we withdraw from the IA.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml#m[/url]
I looked in the "M" section and could not find Macedonia.
We are not there. So there is nothing to worry about. :winkiss:

I suppose if I look at the "T" section I might see something .... but I don't want to look there. It goes against UN charters. But if I take a peek at the "T" section it says admitted 1993. Which precedes the interim agreement anyway. Therefore I will say nothing will happen whatsoever. It will be the same shit with the UN as has been the case for 17 years. Are you tired of the "provisional" name yet?

Bratot,

I've been patient with you, but you are insisting on spreading Gligorovist propaganda which only Buktop and UMD subscribe to these days.

How would declaring the Interim Accord 'null and void' affect our UN membership? How on earth did you come to that assumption? RtG pointed this out so it should give you a clue - do you know when and under what circumstances Macedonia was admitted to the UN? Or are you just spreading more uninformed BS to scare other Macedonians into believing your idiotic scenarios? You're making uninformed assumptions based on inaccurate information and then concluding pre-conceived apocalyptic scenarios accordingly.

Here is a copy of the UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY resolution admitting Macedonia in 1993:

[URL]http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/240/37/IMG/N9324037.pdf?OpenElement[/URL]

The Interim Accord was signed in 1995.

How does an Accord, signed two years later, have any effect on Macedonian UN membership?

Do you know the difference between the General Assembly and the Security Council? Do you know which of the two has the power to admit new members? Do you know how existing members can be expelled or have their membership rights and privileges suspended? Have you ever read (and UNDERSTOOD) the UN Charter? Or are you just making things up as you go along?

Have you REALLY put any thought and research into the apocalyptic scenarios you predict for Macedonia if it declared the Interim Accord 'null and void' or are you just rehashing 15 year old Gligorovist arguements? Do you know what 'null and void' means? Besides the treasonous name negotiations, do you know what else constitutes the Interim Accord? Can you substantiate any of your claims with evidence-based reasoning?

[quote=indigen;61623]Then follow (though never blindly) Vangelovski's, Aleksandrov's and RTG's (there are others too but these guys are leading exponents on MTO whom I think would NOT REGRESS at the drop of a hat!) ideological lead.[/quote]

Thank you for you vote of confidence Indigen - I would include yourself and SoM on that list.

[QUOTE=johnMKD;61536]FYROM is indeed a Greek invention. I guess it's too difficult for them to say PGDM (ΠΓΔΜ) in Greek or they will swallow their tongues with so many consonants. FYR Macedonia is what the UN document states also in my opinion. i.e. it is Macedonia that [U]used to be[/U] under the Yugoslavian state (control). :)[/QUOTE]

That's how it was sold to Macedonia/ns. The reference is actually worse than that. It doesn't state that this is the country Macedonia that used to be a republic of Yugoslavia, but rather that this is the state that used to be known as the Republic of Macedonia in Yugoslavia (but is not any longer and a decision on a new name should be found). It's a reference that is used in absence of a name.

Also to note, as I have previously here, why would the Greeks agree to any name that included the word Macedonia, when they even reduce FYROM to its acronym, to avoid the mention of the word?

Is it as simple as RoM declaring sovereignty and declaring the IA null and void?
Why does RoM do nothing?

And the scenarios that Bratot proclaims may happen, well , if they do happen, they would happen anyway if we waited another 15 years anyway

Surely RoM would be prepared for any insurgents?

[QUOTE=Rogi;61689]I am yet to see any real argument from those suggesting a meek approach in order to bide our time, about the actual consequences of ending the negotiations immediately.

I mean, there have been posts here mentioning embargoes and so on, but there has been no analysis at all as to whether Greece really is in the position to unilateraly declare an economic embargo against Macedonia.

If anyone wanted to take this discussion seriously, which has never been done before on any forum, then it would be about evaluating those assumed consequences. [/QUOTE]

Rogi, you know for a fact that I have posted economic data both from 1994, and from 2008 explaining our Export/energy reliance on the port of Solun. I have completely explained the ramifications of the first embargo as well as possible ramifications of a current one.

I do not wish to say that my analysis is 100% correct, nor do I wish to say that Macedonia is not capable of recovering from economic sanctions, but current economic data indicates a huge impact should those sanctions take place.

This is not an issue that the layman would be able to understand, because there are certain aspects of economic interrelatedness in terms of the affected areas of industry/trade, immediate effects are not easily discerned, nor are their ramifications easily determined.

Whether or not you have viewed my posts or remember them, I cannot say, but if you would like to have a more private conversation where there is less chance for provocation and detraction from the argument, I would be more than willing to do so.

[QUOTE=Vangelovski;61738]Bratot,

I've been patient with you, but [B]you are insisting on spreading Gligorovist [/B]propaganda which only Buktop and UMD subscribe to these days.

[B]How would declaring the Interim Accord 'null and void' affect our UN membership? [/B]How on earth did you come to that assumption? RtG pointed this out so it should give you a clue - [B]do you know when and under what circumstances Macedonia was admitted to the UN?[/B] Or are you just spreading more uninformed BS to scare other Macedonians into believing [B][U]your idiotic scenarios[/U][/B]? You're making uninformed assumptions based on inaccurate information and then concluding pre-conceived apocalyptic scenarios accordingly.

Here is a copy of the UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY resolution admitting Macedonia in 1993:

[URL]http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/240/37/IMG/N9324037.pdf?OpenElement[/URL]

The Interim Accord was signed in 1995.

[B]How does an Accord, signed two years later, have any effect on Macedonian UN membership?[/B]

Do you know the difference between the General Assembly and the Security Council? [B]Do you know which of the two has the power to admit new members?[/B] Do you know how existing members can be expelled or have their membership rights and privileges suspended? Have you ever read (and UNDERSTOOD) the UN Charter? Or are you just making things up as you go along?

Have you REALLY put any thought and research into the apocalyptic scenarios you predict for Macedonia if it declared the Interim Accord 'null and void' or are you just rehashing 15 year old Gligorovist arguements? Do you know what 'null and void' means? Besides the treasonous name negotiations, do you know what else constitutes the Interim Accord? Can you substantiate any of your claims with evidence-based reasoning?[/QUOTE]

Vangelovski,

I don't know how more clear can I make it in order you understand.

According to the questioning you tend doing in the Prolet style but not giving your own explanations on it or anything else, I'm convinced you don't know what we are discussing here and how these matter relates to each other.

If one only follows the questions you ask the conclussion of your total ignorance is obvious as you were caught in few times already.

Meanwhile, let me ask you for your evidence-based argumentation on how such situation will be solved according your understanding and knowledge or you just follow your guts in constructing your opinion in this discussion.

I also asked you nicely to restrain accussing me for 'spreading Gligorvist or Grujovist propaganda' cause it's irritating and offensive to me and I wont tolerate it, if I start using the same methodology in dealing you the quality of this debate will go down with the flow.

The Security Council is recomending the application of a member which has to be ratified in the General Assembly, but also only the SC have the ability to block such resolution.

[QUOTE]In the case of Macedonia it was like this:

[B]The SC, 07.04.1993[/B]

Recommends to the General Assembly that the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State [B]being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" [/B]pending settlement ofthe difference that has arisen over the name of the State.

A/RES/47/225 98th plenary meeting 8 April 1993

Admission of the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations

The General Assembly,

[B]Having received the recommendation of the Security Council [/B]of 7 April 1993 that the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 should be admitted to membership in the United Nations,

Having considered the application for membership contained in document A/47/876-S/25147,

Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, [B]this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" [/B]pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.


Adopted by the Security Council at its 3243rd meeting, on 18 June 1993


The Security Council,


Recalling its resolution [U]817 (1993) of 7 April 1993[/U],[B] in which it urged Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [/B]to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia[B] in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference, [/B]


Having considered the report of the Secretary-General [B]submitted pursuant to resolution 817 (1993), [/B]together with the statement of the Government of Greece and [U]the letter of the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[/U] dated 27 and 29 May 1993 respectively (S/25855 and Add.1 and 2),


1. Expresses its appreciation to the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia for their efforts and commends to the parties as a sound basis for the settlement of their difference the proposals set forth in annex V to the report of the Secretary-General;


2. [U]Urges the parties to continue their efforts under the auspices of the Secretary-General to arrive at a speedy settlement of the remaining issues between them; [/U]


3. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed on the progress of these further efforts, the objective of which is to resolve the difference between the two parties before the commencement of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly, and to report to the Council on their outcome in good time, and decides to resume consideration of the matter in the light of the report.


--------

The Interim Accord


Article 5
1. The Parties [B]agree to continue negotiations [/B]under the auspices of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Security Council [B]resolution 845 (1993) [/B]1
with a view [U]to reaching agreement on the difference [/U]described in that resolution and [U]in Security Council resolution 817 (1993)[/U]. 2

INTERNATIONAL, MULTILATERAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Article 11
1. Upon entry into force of this I.iterim Accord, the Party of the First Part agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party of the Second Part
in international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which the Party of the First Part is a member; however, the Party of the First Part reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent the Party of the Second Part is to be
referred to in such organization or institution [B]differently than in paragraph 2 of United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).[/B][/QUOTE]----

The Interim Accord is made according to the Resolution of 1993 by the Security Council.

You can withdraw from the IA anytime but the provisional name will stay in force.

By ceasing the IA the resolution of our admitting to UN is violated since we obligated ourself to reach an agreement.

Therefore if we want to 'anul and void' the provisional name by withdrawing from the IA is not posibile but only with re-admission to the UN - by recomendation of the SC.

The P-5 members of SC have the right to VETO every resolution, as the one supposed for re-admission of Macedonia under it's Constitutional name.

Now let me hear your plan of getting rid of the 'provisional reference' only by abandoning the IA and how according to you will implicate our status in the UN.

I guess I can relay on your capabilities and knowledge how such diplomatic meneuvres have been and can be done.